Aerodynamic considerations are at the forefront of motor vehicle body design, and have spawned a variety of external appendages to enhance vehicle sleekness. Effective airflow management over a vehicle body can be critical in meeting functional demands for quietness, fuel efficiency and safety of passenger type vehicles, as well as for enhanced vehicle control and improved speed for sporting and competition type vehicles.
Among the most common aerodynamic devices utilized in the automotive industry for a vehicle's front end design/configuration are a chin spoiler, an air dam and a front splitter. The structural differences between the three devices are determined by the way they can manage the airflow. A chin spoiler generally acts like a wing by redirecting airflow incident on the vehicle's front end, and thereby creating a more aerodynamically efficient vehicle body. Generally, however, a chin spoiler is not efficient in reducing front end lift, i.e. where at higher road speeds incident airflow creates a high pressure zone under the vehicle's front substructure. Such a high pressure zone tends to lift the vehicle, thereby reducing pressure on front tires, which in turn negatively impacts the vehicle's road grip. An air dam, on the other hand, generally blocks incident airflow from following a flow path under the vehicle body, and is therefore usually effective in reducing drag. An air dam, however, tends to generate lift, and is therefore detrimental to high speed handling and control of a vehicle. A front splitter combines the functionality of a spoiler and an air dam by controlling airflow around the vehicle and limiting front end lift. Depending on its positioning, a front splitter can limit how much air is directed under the vehicle by slicing through the incoming air stream and directing a portion of the airflow over the vehicle body. It is critical for a splitter's effectiveness that the airflow being directed to the vehicle's undercarriage remains laminar, i.e. smooth. Providing a laminar undercarriage air flow reduces drag and therefore allows the vehicle's aerodynamic efficiency to remain generally unaffected.
Functionally, a front splitter can be effective at higher road speeds in not only preventing front end lift, but also in providing an aerodynamic down force on the vehicle's front wheels. The overall aerodynamic effect is created usually by slicing the incident air flow by the splitter's forward portion and subsequent management and control of the undercarriage air stream by the splitter's underbody portion. The resultant dynamic down force generally helps the driver to retain control of the vehicle at higher road speeds. This down force is highly desirable in sports and racing vehicles, where the aerodynamic down force increases front tire grip in corners, enhances driver control and allows for faster race track lap times. Generally, for effective performance, a splitter's forward portion must be relatively rigid, while the undercarriage portion may remain somewhat flexible. A splitter providing the desired down force is usually developed empirically through design and subsequent testing of an entire assembly, including the splitter's forward and undercarriage portions, on an actual vehicle. Since a front splitter is typically associated with competition-type vehicles, such a device can be utilized to give conventional street vehicles a fashionably sporting appearance. For a conventional road going vehicle, however, the splitter design and its positioning are of necessity compromised toward operation on public roads, making it more of a “street type” device.
For operation on public roads a “street type” splitter must be configured for sufficient ground clearance to accommodate suspension and body movement over dips and potholes, which makes the splitter aerodynamically less effective. Another factor limiting the device's aerodynamic effectiveness are government regulations which typically limit how much a front splitter may physically protrude beyond the perimeter of the bumper on a production street vehicle. Hence, the above limitations for a “street type” front splitter design will likely render it less effective for race track use.
Based on the foregoing, it would be desirable to provide a front splitter for a motor vehicle which can be conveniently re-configured for race track use with minimum effort.